Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

Come on man, they don't pay taxes today, we're not unburdening them with your proposal.
Are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

huh? I'm just referring to people not having to file today under the current system. You act like it's some hard thing to figure out. Most people who don't have to file know it.

I don't think I do, I used to run a business in a country that had VAT, and I also know what's it's like to be in an industry when the only way you can keep your prices competitive is to avoid paying VAT (which is pretty much what everyone did on every cash transaction, if you want to talk about "market distortions").
But more importantly, regardless of the amount of the increase, can we agree that your plan will increase the compliance burden for businesses?
So please, let put the "VAT will reduce the compliance burden" argument to bed, okay?

Of course, that's one of the downsides of a sales tax (cash sales). California has sales taxes and my family had a business, so I'm directly knowledge in cash sales. But do you report your gambling wins on your income taxes? Maybe you won a gift card in a contest. Did you report that?

Both income taxes and sales taxes has tax evasion by omitting information.

The amount of compliance increase for businesses is much less than reducing it on households, though. It's truly not even in the same realm. And only small businesses have the luxury of those types of tax evasions, Best Buy does not.

edit: Regarding compliance, income taxes involve depreciation which is far tougher to anything a consumption tax does.

First of all, I think we should encourage spending, not savings.
Do you support deflation too?
That encourages savings more than anything.
A less nice way of saying the exact same thing is that it discourage consumption, and consumption is an economically positive activity.

We need to encourage spending in this economy because we have a Demand problem. But remember, this is an issue now because people didn't save enough to begin with and are trying to fix their balance sheets. Furthermore, the consumption problem is a disposable income problem, not a people are saving too much problem.

Saving is a MASSIVE problem in this country and we didn't do enough of it. We should have discouraged consumption years ago and we're partly in this mess because we didn't. Balance sheets got so out of whack.

Also, your deflation comment is nonsense. because I think we save too little in this country doesn't mean I support deflation. That would be me arguing that if you like consumption so much, you support massive personal debt.

I also don't accept your assertion that income tax reduces economic output more than VAT.
On a macro level, they're the same, either people have less money to spend or things cost more, what's the difference?

Did you click the study I gave? there's empirical evidence of it, it's not like it's something made up.

There is a difference. As I already explained, your behavior changes based on how taxes are done.

Do you understand that a payroll tax and an income tax are identical? They're both income taxes. However, payroll taxes have been sold as an "investment" on your future. This little thing has changed the way the labor market works. Income taxes are mostly a result of employers having to raise wages to compensate (not 100%, but most of it). meanwhile, payroll taxes are pretty much entirely put on the worker in the form of lowered wages (except minimum wage earners of course) because of the "investment" gimmick. If you were to eliminate the payroll tax and incorporate it into higher income tax rates, employers would respond by raising wages because the worker would no longer associate their SS and Medicare directly to a tax and would demand higher wages to compensate for higher taxes (and yes, there is empirical data showing this).

How you tax DOES matter. it affects the behavior of people. You ask what difference is it if people have less money or things cost more and the answer is "all the difference in the world." People react differently to things which should give the same outcome. Now, you look at it from some perspective in a vacuum and think it shouldn't matter, but humans are very fickle. Our thought processes are not entirely rational, we are not the type of people to sit down and work all this out.

I'll ask another question. What if the gov't didn't withhold your taxes from your paycheck but your income taxes saw no changes otherwise? Would the behavior of people change?

Spoiler

the answer is obviously yes

And you didn't answer my gas tax question.

 

[gcubed]

Seems fine until you consider that kids will be affected by this...

I'm hoping some of those kids can eventually move out of the state and it can fester in its own self made hell. At this point I have a hard time getting upset about states screwing themselves, I'm so worn down all I can do is mark it as a place I'd never live

 

[Trurl]

How difficult will it be for Ohio to be part of the Medicaid expansion after we rejected it once?

 

[zero_suit]

I'm hoping some of those kids can eventually move out of the state and it can fester in its own self made hell. At this point I have a hard time getting upset about states screwing themselves, I'm so worn down all I can do is mark it as a place I'd never live

Unfortunately, I agree with you.

 

[Clevinger]

Republicans in the Ohio House are rejecting the Medicaid expansion even after Kasich supported it. Goddamn am I angry. Apart from being heartless, how does this make any sense for Ohio?

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/04/08/Ohio-Medicaid-expansion.html

This party needs to disappear.

I fear this will repeat in Arizona. For once Jan Brewer supports something good, and the legislature will probably reject it.

 

[Oblivion]

The right wing jizzing over Thatcher is really baffling. I mean, I get why they like her, but it's so weird to see them lavish a foreign figure with praise that comes within spitting distance of even the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH).

Does the left have any foreign leader that garners the same amount of praise? I can't think of any.

 

[gcubed]

The right wing jizzing over Thatcher is somewhat puzzling. I mean, I get why they like her, but it's so weird to see them lavish a foreign figure with praise that comes within spitting distance of even the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH).

Does the left have any foreign leader that garners the same amount of praise? I can't think of any.

Chavez?

 

[zero shift]

Chavez?

Not really. People seem divided amongst him, even socialists. Which isn't surprising as he's a very mixed bag. To be fair though given the state Venezuela was in at the time he took the mantle I can't really blame him.

 

[Chichikov]

huh? I'm just referring to people not having to file today under the current system. You act like it's some hard thing to figure out. Most people who don't have to file know it.



Of course, that's one of the downsides of a sales tax (cash sales). California has sales taxes and my family had a business, so I'm directly knowledge in cash sales. But do you report your gambling wins on your income taxes? Maybe you won a gift card in a contest. Did you report that?

Both income taxes and sales taxes has tax evasion by omitting information.

The amount of compliance increase for businesses is much less than reducing it on households, though. It's truly not even in the same realm. And only small businesses have the luxury of those types of tax evasions, Best Buy does not.

edit: Regarding compliance, income taxes involve depreciation which is far tougher to anything a consumption tax does.



We need to encourage spending in this economy because we have a Demand problem. But remember, this is an issue now because people didn't save enough to begin with and are trying to fix their balance sheets. Furthermore, the consumption problem is a disposable income problem, not a people are saving too much problem.

Saving is a MASSIVE problem in this country and we didn't do enough of it. We should have discouraged consumption years ago and we're partly in this mess because we didn't. Balance sheets got so out of whack.

Also, your deflation comment is nonsense. because I think we save too little in this country doesn't mean I support deflation. That would be me arguing that if you like consumption so much, you support massive personal debt.




Did you click the study I gave? there's empirical evidence of it, it's not like it's something made up.

There is a difference. As I already explained, your behavior changes based on how taxes are done.

Do you understand that a payroll tax and an income tax are identical? They're both income taxes. However, payroll taxes have been sold as an "investment" on your future. This little thing has changed the way the labor market works. Income taxes are mostly a result of employers having to raise wages to compensate (not 100%, but most of it). meanwhile, payroll taxes are pretty much entirely put on the worker in the form of lowered wages (except minimum wage earners of course) because of the "investment" gimmick. If you were to eliminate the payroll tax and incorporate it into higher income tax rates, employers would respond by raising wages because the worker would no longer associate their SS and Medicare directly to a tax and would demand higher wages to compensate for higher taxes (and yes, there is empirical data showing this).

How you tax DOES matter. it affects the behavior of people. You ask what difference is it if people have less money or things cost more and the answer is "all the difference in the world." People react differently to things which should give the same outcome. Now, you look at it from some perspective in a vacuum and think it shouldn't matter, but humans are very fickle. Our thought processes are not entirely rational, we are not the type of people to sit down and work all this out.

I'll ask another question. What if the gov't didn't withhold your taxes from your paycheck but your income taxes saw no changes otherwise? Would the behavior of people change?

Spoiler

the answer is obviously yes

And you didn't answer my gas tax question.

I'm losing your argument again, you're saying a few things half heartedly, I'm trying to refocus.
Can we maybe pick a reason why you think VAT is good and try to flesh it out? I feel like we're jumping around from argument to argument without reaching any resolution or agreement.

Anyway, I see three main arguments for VAT in that post, and I would address separately (I don't mean to misrepresent, just trying to address what I think are the important points) -

1. that it increase compliance costs - as I said, this is only true to people who would not have to pay income tax at all because of that move, and I think you can't make that number work if you make that number of people substantial, but more importantly, I think this issue should be handled by simplifying our tax code.

2. we should encourage saving - encouraging saving is discouraging consumption, and I think you should only do it when the economy is too hot, and there are significantly better tools to achieve it than flipping the switch on VAT. Like, would you remove VAT whenever we go into recession? also, I think you forgot that most American don't save because they're living paycheck to paycheck, introducing VAT is not going to encourage them to do anything but eat less.

3. Better economic output - not sure how that study or anything that you said support it.

And I probably missed your tax question, what was it?

 

[Oblivion]

Chavez?

Nah. I'm sure some lefties like him, but he's not as universally loved among us as Thatcher seems to be among conservatives.

Spoiler

Come on, how can you not mention Hitler? I can't throw these softballs all the time, people!

 

[rocketknight]

For real, or parody?

The context in which I came across it was serious, but I haven't been brave enough to load up the Facebook URL in the image.

 

[The Last Emperor]

the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH).

 

[speculawyer]

The right wing jizzing over Thatcher is really baffling. I mean, I get why they like her, but it's so weird to see them lavish a foreign figure with praise that comes within spitting distance of even the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH).

Does the left have any foreign leader that garners the same amount of praise? I can't think of any.

The viewed Reagan and Thatcher as a team. Of course, the male is always the true leader.

 

[speculawyer]

Chavez?

No, not at all. Yes, some of the far left (EV) like him. But he is generally regarded as a buffoon. And even if you like his very far-left economics, Chavez basically aligned himself with every other anti-american persona whether it made sense or not. Thus, he was in bed with Ghadaffi, Iran, and other sleazy dictators based on them just being anti-American. That is petty & pathetic.

 

[jamesinclair]

Re taxes.

I worked at the irs. People send in stubs the casino gives you showing your winnings. That's how you pay gambling taxes.


Tax obesity.

Infinite revenue

Works well as social policy too. The fatter you get, the more you pay, the less you can spend on getting fat

 

[empty vessel]

No, not at all. Yes, some of the far left (EV) like him. But he is generally regarded as a buffoon. And even if you like his very far-left economics, Chavez basically aligned himself with every other anti-american persona whether it made sense or not. Thus, he was in bed with Ghadaffi, Iran, and other sleazy dictators based on them just being anti-American. That is petty & pathetic.

This has all the nuance of a right-winger talking about Obama. As a starting point to understanding these alignments that seem strange on their face, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement. Countries that are not economically aligned with major players have common interests (one of which is avoiding being bombed by said major players).

 

[smokeandmirrors]

Nah. I'm sure some lefties like him, but he's not as universally loved among us as Thatcher seems to be among conservatives.

Spoiler

Come on, how can you not mention Hitler? I can't throw these softballs all the time, people!

Lefties tend to be divided on a lot of things.

It's strange. Most conservative people [republicans i guess i should use here] are generally united in group think. Where as liberalism is very multifaceted and that's probably how we can't get much done in this country.

 

[zero shift]

Is there anything Reagan did that you guys liked?

No, not at all. Yes, some of the far left (EV) like him. But he is generally regarded as a buffoon. And even if you like his very far-left economics, Chavez basically aligned himself with every other anti-american persona whether it made sense or not. Thus, he was in bed with Ghadaffi, Iran, and other sleazy dictators based on them just being anti-American. That is petty & pathetic.

To be fair it isn't like America and other Western nations aren't alone in this. One of Chavez's main goals was getting Venezuela less dependent on the U.S. and in some ways that has worked. Not saying its ideal but I wouldn't paint him as a demon for it.

Chavez is also only regarded as a buffoon to America and its allies. He's a hero to much of South America, including those many on GAF float about, most notably Lula.

 

[gcubed]

Nah. I'm sure some lefties like him, but he's not as universally loved among us as Thatcher seems to be among conservatives.

Spoiler

Come on, how can you not mention Hitler? I can't throw these softballs all the time, people!

I didn't want to jump the shark. Hitler is more right wing anyway. I was going to go with Lenin but went nuanced

 

[Qazaq]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/manchin_toomey_prepare_to_unveil_gun_deal-223858-1.html?pg=2

A bipartisan group of Senate negotiators signaled Tuesday night that it has reached a deal in principle on expanding background checks to include more gun sales, in what was widely seen as the major sticking point on the biggest gun control legislation to reach the floor since 1994.
Sens. Joe Manchin III, D-W.Va., and Patrick J. Toomey, R-Pa., said they would hold a news conference at 11 a.m. Wednesday to discuss the details of the tentative deal, which was reached with the support of Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and could entice a significant number of other lawmakers to sign on. Schumer told reporters that some details still needed to be worked out but that “we’re closer than we’ve ever been.”

 

[Fuchsdh]

http://www.rollcall.com/news/manchin_toomey_prepare_to_unveil_gun_deal-223858-1.html?pg=2

I will believe it when it passes.

 

[speculawyer]

This has all the nuance of a right-winger talking about Obama. As a starting point to understanding these alignments that seem strange on their face, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement. Countries that are not economically aligned with major players have common interests (one of which is avoiding being bombed by said major players).

Playing the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" game is very dangerous and it just backfires too often. It backfires on us and it backfires on Chavez. You lie with dogs, you get fleas.

No one is going to bomb you unless you are a total prick so there is no need to align yourself with murderous dictators like Ghadaffi.

And Chavez's socialist stuff just doesn't work that well. I appreciate helping the poor but it doesn't work to just give away stuff. He was building patronage empire based on the buried treasure (the oil wealth). What happens when the oil runs out? Massive collapse.

Look, I'm for using a nation's natural resource wealth for the benefit of its people. But you do it the way Norway does. You create a sovereign fund, you help with healthcare, and you get your people working the jobs on that natural resource. But you don't giveaway gasoline for 16 cents a gallon or whatever Venezuela gives its gasoline away for. That just creates inefficiency and waste. Gas in Norway is close to $10/gallon!

 

[Chichikov]

Is there anything Reagan did that you guys liked?

Yes.

 

[speculawyer]

Is there anything Reagan did that you guys liked?

He negotiated arms reductions with the USSR.
He didn't gay-bash as much as a lot of GOPers.
He wasn't a 2nd amendment absolutist.
He worked with Dems to fix social security.
Cutting taxes down from 70% was OK . . . although he cut them too far (and did raise them back up a bit).

But I could go on for a long time with the bad stuff.

To be fair it isn't like America and other Western nations aren't alone in this. One of Chavez's main goals was getting Venezuela less dependent on the U.S. and in some ways that has worked. Not saying its ideal but I wouldn't paint him as a demon for it.

Chavez is also only regarded as a buffoon to America and its allies. He's a hero to much of South America, including those many on GAF float about, most notably Lula.

But why is he a hero to much of South America? Some of it is a "fuck the USA" vibe which I can understand. Especially given the gunboat diplomacy of the decades past and the proxy wars fought in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicuragua. The overthrow in Chile and propping up Pinochet. Those are things much of South America hates us for and most of the USA is totally ignorant about. I get that.

But if you completely go communist to spite the USA then you are only hurting yourself. And I think Chavez went that way. With the amount of oil Venezuela has, they could be hugely wealthy. But instead they are just doing OK. Now there situation of OK revenue spread out among the people is probably much better than if it were run by kleptocracy that made a lot of money on oil but kept it all in the hands of a few Elite. But there should be some middle ground between those.

 

[Chichikov]

He negotiated arms reductions with the USSR.

Nope, he doesn't get any credit on that front.
He stepped away from SALT II like a fucking idiot because "the ruskies gonna Red Dawn us any moment now!" (and probably because he didn't bother to open a map and figure out where Afghanistan is).
I don't care that he got some watered down bullshit crammed down his throat when his mind was barely there by people who knew better (and Gorby).
His record is fucking dreadful on nuclear disarmament.

 

[zero shift]

Look, I'm for using a nation's natural resource wealth for the benefit of its people. But you do it the way Norway does. You create a sovereign fund, you help with healthcare, and you get your people working the jobs on that natural resource. But you don't giveaway gasoline for 16 cents a gallon or whatever Venezuela gives its gasoline away for. That just creates inefficiency and waste. Gas in Norway is close to $10/gallon!

The funny part is that socialism would be ideal for this. Venezuela could have learned a lot from China's and Vietnam's state enterprises. He could have the nation build tons shit in that country. Probably some new housing for the poor.

And Chavez's socialist stuff just doesn't work that well. I appreciate helping the poor but it doesn't work to just give away stuff. He was building patronage empire based on the buried treasure (the oil wealth). What happens when the oil runs out? Massive collapse.

There wasn't a massive collapse when the oil ran out in 2008-2010. I mean yes the economy hurt but it wasn't the massive 1980s Nicaraguan economic destruction people predicted. One has to remember the colossal clusterfuck Venezuela was pre-Chavez. You don't like inflation? The situation was worse during the previous presidents. You don't like authoritarian leanings? Chavez is a beacon of democracy, literally, compared to Perez who would regularly kill people for protesting. You don't like the lack of food production? It has been increase at a record rate since Chavez's reforms, some food is scarce because the people can actually afford to eat it now. Not to mention many of Venezuela's fastest growing sectors aren't the oil sectors but lie in the service sector.

I don't believe that Chavez has fucked Venezuela beyond fixing, but I don't believe he is a savior either. To me he's somewhere in between. I will admit however I am in some ways glad that he is no longer in charge. He did a lot of stuff that needed to get done that, face it, would have never gotten done if say Obama or Lula was in charge of the country. But he did do a lot of backwards things with the forwards. Maduro is going to win the next election, don't believe what Venezuela-GAF tells you the PSUV has overwhelming support in that country. He has expressed some tidbits of solving some of these problems and lets hope he does.

 

[empty vessel]

Playing the "Enemy of my enemy is my friend" game is very dangerous and it just backfires too often. It backfires on us and it backfires on Chavez. You lie with dogs, you get fleas.

No one is going to bomb you unless you are a total prick so there is no need to align yourself with murderous dictators like Ghadaffi.

This just exhibits a very naive and simplistic understanding of the world and international relations. A regime changed carried out by large powers against a non-aligned country represents a threat to other non-aligned countries, particularly a country that has already been targeted for regime change like Venezuela. Weak countries have very little room in which to maneuver on the international stage and there is strength in numbers.

But I'm not terribly interested in arguing the point. I'm not trying to change your opinion about Chavez. I don't care what you think about him. But I do think the rationales you've offered don't hold water and could just as easily be applied to Obama or any Western leader, who are also, as you well know, in bed with dictators and even directly engaging in all manner of crimes against humanity.

 

[Chichikov]

I get the sense that a lot of you guys have a bit of a skewed image of what Chavez did economically.
No, it didn't work so well, some was execution, some was external forces, some were just downright bad ideas, but it's not this Stalinist anti-NEP five year plan.

Go read this, and tell me if you don't like a lot of the individual ideas.

 

[pigeon]

Is there anything Reagan did that you guys liked?

He was the president of a union for a while.

 

[speculawyer]

This just exhibits a very naive and simplistic understanding of the world and international relations. A regime changed carried out by large powers against a non-aligned country represents a threat to other non-aligned countries, particularly a country that has already been targeted for regime change like Venezuela. Weak countries have very little room in which to maneuver on the international stage and there is strength in numbers.

But I'm not terribly interested in arguing the point. I'm not trying to change your opinion about Chavez. I don't care what you think about him. But I do think the rationales you've offered don't hold water and could just as easily be applied to Obama or any Western leader, who are also, as you well know, in bed with dictators and even directly engaging in all manner of crimes against humanity.

All you have to do to not be attacked or overthrown, is not be a dick. But he put himself into the corner of having to worry about that by nationalizing oil projects and stealing stuff from the international oil companies. And, no, it is not the nationalizing part that really gets you into trouble. Mexico nationalized, Saudi Arabi nationalized, and others have too. We still remain friends with them. But when you just take stuff from companies and do not provide just compensation, people get pissed.

He was being a dick and he knew it. Thus he got scared and aligned himself with a-holes.

 

[zero shift]

I get the sense that a lot of you guys have a bit of a skewed image of the Chavez did economically.
No, it didn't work so well, some was execution, some was external forces, some were just downright bad ideas, but it's not this Stalinist anti-NEP five year plan.

Go read this, and tell me if you don't like a lot of the individual ideas.

Pretty much. VenezuelaGAF and mainstream newspapers act as if Chavez is turning the nation into the next Cuba. Despite him admiring Fidel the nation isn't really like that.

I highly advise people to go to the SomethingAwful Venezuela Elections thread. There are some good insider information. Most notably someone that works in the food production business worldwide and giving his input on how Venezuela handles things.

 

[AniHawk]

The right wing jizzing over Thatcher is really baffling. I mean, I get why they like her, but it's so weird to see them lavish a foreign figure with praise that comes within spitting distance of even the great Prophet Reagan (PBUH).

Does the left have any foreign leader that garners the same amount of praise? I can't think of any.

obama.

 

[Oblivion]

obama.

Goddamn it.

 

[Chichikov]

obama.

 

[The Librarian]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/321829917446791168

 

[Chichikov]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/321829917446791168

Why?
So fucking stupid.
I haven't followed that story closely, who do I get to hate for that bullshit?

 

[Gotchaye]

Why?
So fucking stupid.
I haven't followed that story closely, who do I get to hate for that bullshit?

It's the Senate. Reid between the lines.

 

[Aaron]

Seems fine until you consider that kids will be affected by this...

George Carlin made a joke in the 80s about Republicans caring more about unborn children than actual children. "Once you're born, you're fucked." Still true today because the GOP inherently attracts people without empathy. While that's true of politics in general, people who actually want to make a difference would naturally go Democrat or third party. No one who ever thinks that way becomes Republican. The result is a political group for sociopaths, essentially. That's the reason behind their united front, operating on mutual self interest, but as soon as there's a chance for personal gain they turn on each other like rabid dogs.

 

[GhaleonEB]

https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/321829917446791168

He won't - gotta have a Deal(TM) - but I wish Obama would drop a veto threat on this shit.

 

[speculawyer]

obama.

Well played, sir.

 

[Hitokage]

His record is fucking dreadful on nuclear disarmament.

It motivated a good run of 80s films though!

 

[besada]

Is there anything Reagan did that you guys liked?
.

I liked him in Bedtime for Bongo.

 

[Owzers]

I know there were some jokes earlier..but Hannity brought up the knife attack and asked if it was hypocrisy that the left isn't asking for knife control.

There is no end to the madness.

 

[TheHeretic]

George Carlin made a joke in the 80s about Republicans caring more about unborn children than actual children. "Once you're born, you're fucked." Still true today because the GOP inherently attracts people without empathy. While that's true of politics in general, people who actually want to make a difference would naturally go Democrat or third party. No one who ever thinks that way becomes Republican. The result is a political group for sociopaths, essentially. That's the reason behind their united front, operating on mutual self interest, but as soon as there's a chance for personal gain they turn on each other like rabid dogs.

I don't think this is at all true. Polling shows dramatic differences between republican policy and republican voters desires. The party operates through the obfuscation if its own media and seems heavily influenced by small groups of very aggressive donors, be they companies, individuals or relatively small voting blocks like the NRA and the Tea Party. Nobody actually wants the Ryan plan, and it would never pass through a republican congress anyway. I think you underestimate how self concious many on the republican side really are. But politics is about power, and its safer for many to go with the flow than stick their necks out.

 

[pigeon]

Nobody actually wants the Ryan plan, and it would never pass through a republican congress anyway.

I generally agree with this post, but the Ryan Plan has ALREADY passed the GOP House. Are you saying that the GOP would suddenly rediscover moderation if only they would win more? The incentives seem to point in the wrong direction on that one!

 

[TheHeretic]

I generally agree with this post, but the Ryan Plan has ALREADY passed the GOP House. Are you saying that the GOP would suddenly rediscover moderation if only they would win more? The incentives seem to point in the wrong direction on that one!

They passed it knowing it could never come into law, it's show voting and it keeps the activists I described earlier in line. Do you really think a congress and a president could survive an economic agenda that far right? It's like prohibition, it's one thing to talk about it, it's another to live in a country where that's the sociopolitical reality. The backlash from a Ryan plan would push the country well to the left and would become a reverso Reagan - who was a product of backlash against American liberalisms failures and indulgences.

 

[Chichikov]

They passed it knowing it could never come into law, it's show voting and it keeps the activists I described earlier in line. Do you really think a congress and a president could survive an economic agenda that far right? It's like prohibition, it's one thing to talk about it, it's another to live in a country where that's the sociopolitical reality. The backlash from a Ryan plan would push the country well to the left and would become a reverso Reagan - who was a product of backlash against American liberalisms failures and indulgences.

I think it was more a backlash against the oil crisis and the CIA fucking things with Iran.

 

[TheHeretic]

I think it was more a backlash against the oil crisis and the CIA fucking things with Iran.

Carter was presiding over a very poor economy, by his own standards (big mistake by quoting the misery index). Middle class voters flipped because Democrats were seen to be taking middle class tax dollars and spending them on suboptimal Government projects. Now the middle class is flipping back as inequality rises and the democrats seem to be the only party to take notice. Iran didn't help, but most elections really are about the economy in capitalist societies.

 

[zero shift]

Well things Ronald Reagan did that I liked:

- Stopped the monopoly on telecommunications.

- Deregulation in general. I believe as long as you pay your workers enough, have the company pay its fair share in taxes, and don't have any dangerous conditions present in the world place there shouldn't be much more of a need for regulations. American businesses needed some deregulation back then. But it should have been concentrated, accurate, and gradual. Not swift and radical.

 

[Hitokage]

- Deregulation in general. I believe as long as you pay your workers enough, have the company pay its fair share in taxes, and don't have any dangerous conditions present in the world place there shouldn't be much more of a need for regulations.

Externalities.